lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 2/2] sched/fair: prefer a CPU in the "lowest" idle state
On 01/31/2013 04:45 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 04:24 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/31/2013 03:40 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:30:02 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>>> On 01/31/2013 02:58 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>>>> But AFAIK the number of states in cpuidle is usually less than 10 so maybe
>>>>> we can change the weight then, but there's no promise...
>>>>
>>>> And I just got another case we should take care:
>>>>
>>>> group 0 cpu 0 cpu 1
>>>> power index 8 power index 8
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> group 1 cpu 2 cpu 3
>>>> power index 0 load 15
>>>>
>>>> so load of group 0 is 16 and group 1 is 15, but group 0 is better...
>>>
>>> Maybe it's not. The cpus in group 0 are in a lower power state so that
>>> there will be a benefit to select cpu 2 from the power' PoV IMHO. Also
>>> such a low power state has a longer exit latency so that we should
>>> choose cpu2 to get a better performance and it's the basic idea of this
>>> patchset I believe.
>>
>> Well, this case is just to notify that, we may face the comparison
>> between load and index, not between index and index, I just doubt there
>> won't be a rule which could take care both, besides, comparison between
>> load and index is strange...
>
> Oh, I miss the point that you call it 'idle load', hmm...may be it could
> works, if we could scale the current load number, then we will have more
> 'space' for 'idle load'.

And some tips here:

/*
* Increase resolution of nice-level calculations for 64-bit architectures.
* The extra resolution improves shares distribution and load balancing of
* low-weight task groups (eg. nice +19 on an autogroup), deeper taskgroup
* hierarchies, especially on larger systems. This is not a user-visible change
* and does not change the user-interface for setting shares/weights.
*
* We increase resolution only if we have enough bits to allow this increased
* resolution (i.e. BITS_PER_LONG > 32). The costs for increasing resolution
* when BITS_PER_LONG <= 32 are pretty high and the returns do not justify the
* increased costs.
*/
#if 0 /* BITS_PER_LONG > 32 -- currently broken: it increases power usage under light load */
# define SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION 10
# define scale_load(w) ((w) << SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION)
# define scale_load_down(w) ((w) >> SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION)

It mentioned some regressions, that's the history but
sounds like a lot of testing is needed.

Regards,
Michael Wang

>
> Regards,
> Michael Wang
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Michael Wang
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Namhyung
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>>>
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-31 10:43    [W:0.075 / U:0.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site